Mr. RYCKMAN:

I didn't think it was

quite as bad as all that.

Mr. YOUNG:

It is, for I have actually

counted the words, and they are all in one sentence. The man who did it must have been working by the mile.

Mr. BENNETT:

He must have been a

free trader.

Mr. YOUNG:

A correspondent suggests

to me that there may be a hidden meaning in it. It has been said that language was given man as a means of concealing his thoughts; evidently that was the idea in the mind of the person who drafted this section. I suggest to the minister that he break it up into a number of clear, terse, concise sentences. When you want to draft a thing like this there are two principles to be observed: first, keep clearly in mind what you want to say and, secondly, say it.

Mr. RYCKMAN:

Did my hon. friend ever think of applying that to himself?

Mr. YOUNG:

I do the best I can. The

minister wants to say several things here. If he will tell us what they are, we will try to say them for him. The first thing he wants to say is that the governor in council shall have power td fix the values of certain currencies. Why not say that in one sentence and stop there? Then make another sentence for the next thing the minister wants to do. He wants to say that the value for duty shall be based on the value of currency so fixed. Let him put that in another sentence. Then he can have another saying that the governor in council shall have power to determine every fortnight the average value of the currency in question. Let him have another sentence stating that in case the actual price paid for the goods at the average current rate of exchange is less than the value for duty so fixed, the goods shall be considered as dumped and shall be liable to dumping duty. Then he can have another sentence saying that when certain relationships exist between

the importer and the exporter the transaction shall be considered as a sale and values shall be determined as in the former clauses of the bill. Let him put those different ideas in different short, terse sentences expressed in simple words. Then we shall understand the matter and be able to discuss it intelligently. At present the bill does not make sense.

Mr. RYCKMAN:

The Department of

Justice revised this section, and they did not have any difficulty with it. I must say I did not at first understand it as fully as I might have wished, but after reading it the second and third times, for I have read it a few times, I think it is plain. I do not believe my hon. friend would have to read it three times to understand it.

Mr. YOUNG:

If the Justice department

drafted it they may be quite capable of understanding it, and the minister may also be capable of understanding it, but it has to be understood by ordinary mortals in business and they do not seem to know what it means. Even the officials of the department do not seem to understand it. I suggest that it be put into simple language so that the man in the street, even the hon. member for Weyburn may understand it.

Mr. BENNETT:

If they all understand it as well as he does, there will be none who do not understand it.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):

Carried.

Mr. YOUNG:

No. We want it redrafted.

Does the minister not think it should be redrafted and simplified?

Mr. RYCKMAN:

Frankly, I think not.

The difficulties have been caused by the complications in the working out of business, the fluctuations we have had; by reason of changes in exchange values a dumping duty may be shown one day and none the next. It is these things that cause difficulty, but anyone in the trade who will follow it, will understand it. I can appreciate the fact that a layman might find some difficulty on reading this over for the first time, but I think a bright minded person, on reading it the second time, would understand it fully.

Mr. YOUNG:

Unfortunately we are not

all sufficiently bright minded to do so. In spite of what the minister says, in the last section I read where certain relationships are supposed to exist between the importer and the exporter and I cannot find in the bill anything other than that if such relationship exist, the goods are dumped no matter what

Special War Revenue Act

the price is. Surely the minister ought to be willing to clear this up by clarifying his language.

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I think it is clear now.

Mr. RHODES:

I have an amendment to

offer to this section as follows:

That the hill be amended as follows:

That subsection (2) of section 44, as proposed to be enacted by section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

(2) The following cheques shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this section, under regulations to be prescribed by the minister, when drawn for an amount of money not exceeding $5:-

(1) cheques issued in payment for milk or cream to producers thereof;

(ii) cheques issued in payment for eggs or poultry by egg and poultry exchanges to producers thereof;

(iii) cheques issued by cooperative associations of wool growers in payment for wool to producers thereof;

(iv) cheques issued by municipal corporations to persons in receipt of unemployment relief.

There is a similar exemption in the case of money orders, post office money orders and postal notes.

Mr. RHODES:

I have the following amendment to offer to this section:

That subsection (2) of section 65, as proposed to be enacted by section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

(2) The following money orders shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this section, under regulations to be prescribed by the minister, when drawn for an amount of money not exceeding $5:-

(i) money orders issued in payment for milk or cream to producers thereof;

(ii) money orders issued in payment for eggs

or poultry by egg and poultry exchanges to producers thereof; _

(iii) money orders issued by cooperative associations of wool growers in payment for wool to producers thereof;

(iv) money orders issued by municipal corporations to persons in receipt of unemployment relief.